Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[ArmChairCivvy]

Nice list. If I read it correctly, this mean VLS could be "fitted for but not with" as built.

I rather think that the hull will be dimensioned with other criteria first, and then, if big enough, the space will be reserved (but utilised as a gym in the interim).

Contiguous hangar and mission bay could be on the lines (for uses such as) shown here:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/u ... ng-arcims/
- what is shown (in blue) on the sides become boat facilities
- please note the MCM boats in the water
- the "blue" then becomes the forward 50% of the contiguous space (side opening facilitated)
- the aft 50% will still facilitate 1-2 UAVs (and the 100% can not only fit a helo - not necessarily a Merlin - but the helo can also be maintained, v necessary when the mission is more about a lengthy patrol than providing a Task Force with MCM that deploys with it)

It is 5 yrs and a couple of months since
"2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) confirmed that the Mine Countermeasures, Hydrographic, and Patrol Capability (MHPC) would eventually replace the existing MCM and Survey vessels. Subsequent agreements with the French have also seen a commitment to a joint programme. It also became clear around this time, as the FMCMC had suggested, that mine countermeasures would be about removing the need for clearance divers as much as possible, reducing the need for dedicated platforms and increasing deployability. I [this quote is from the same TD article as the graphics link above] think it also signalled the end for highly specialised, low magnetic, quiet and ultra-expensive MCM vessels, maybe not soon, but definitely on the horizon [when the FLFs will need specialists to man their mission modules, say, 3 current MCM vessels would do that for an IOC to be declared]. These goals pointed to the compact deployable set of equipment that could be operated at standoff distances from any vessel [with the appropriate facilities and space] or the shore."

Many have held that the "P" had dropped off from the MHPC (because it was listed last in the acronym?).
Exactly the opposite may happen as even when fitted with a remote MCM capability (the containers and the boats), and FLF configured as shown would retain a patrol capability (only trading a manned helo for an UAV or two... AS A SIDE NOTE, now, what does the USN TERN from NG look like? And where did the UK £3m spent on a similar capability go ? No images of TERN yet, except of experimental a/c from the '50s and no info of its required footprint (deck & hangar).
- nice bonus, though, the £1.4 bn earmarked for MHPC
- say, spend .4 of it on the R&D and subscale (but working) prototypes
- - the French will spend the same (we hope)
- the remaining bn, divided by the FLF units, makes £200m per unit
-- spend half of that for the specialised modules/ kit, and you still have a subsidy of £100m towards the hull

Assume T26 coming in at £ 600-800m a piece, target price for FLF two thirds of that, say a round 500m
=> effective cost of the "additional" programme 5 x 400 (net)m = 2bn
And... what is additional about it?
- 5 T26s dropped
- instead of the pencilled in 14 MHPC units, 5 will (initially) be delivered
- to come up to the full 14 with 9 would be 4.5 bn (no subsidy element remaining and assuming that no more than 5 units would be kitted out for MCM duty at any given time)

What is £4.5bn? About 4-5 T26s. How many were dropped from the plans
... and who says there is no capability trading, now that each arm of the Defence Forces has more say within their budget?

[Repulse]

If you ask me, removing mission space and aviation space is the ONE thing that must NOT be done.

Sorry, I missed the word "Contiguous" from my post. The problem with the Contiguous hangar and mission bay is that it makes the top weight such that the vessel has to be larger than it needs to be. Going back to the original T26 concept of a stern mission bay would be more appropriate.

In terms of aviation facilities, I'd still go for a lynx sized hangar only, but keep the Merlin sized deck. The reason being is that I see size being a key consideration for a light frigate as two design criteria should be speed and stealth hence smaller than the T26.

Im not discounting the need for UAV/UUV/USuV mothership requirement but this is a sloop to me (akin to MHPC requirement), which could be a more commercial design. Note, I see no "OPV" requirement in the future of the RN as I see the need being fulfilled by a mixture of Frigates and Sloops.

[Repulse]

What should it do?
How will it do it?
What does it need to do it?
What hull better supports the equipment needed?

Very good questions. I'd say due to the fact that all the T26s will be tied up on CBG and SSBN duties the new Frigate will need to do the following:

- EEZ patrol and response (including the monitoring of foreign warships in UK waters). This requires speed, endurance and stealth. It also needs a decent radar, limited ASuW / AAW capability for self defence and as a deterrent and the ability to host a helicopter / UAV and a boarding party.
- Littoral Operations (sea denial and support of amphibious forces). Same as above but a more shallow draft would be needed to allow for manoeuvrability, plus a decent gun for NGFS, plus local ASW support.
- Global Anti Piracy / Drugs / Terrorism ops. As above.

Note, no Humanitarian Aid, which is the role of a Sloop / RFA in my view.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Contiguous hangar and mission bay could be on the lines (for uses such as) shown here:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/u ... ng-arcims/
- what is shown (in blue) on the sides become boat facilities
- please note the MCM boats in the water
- the "blue" then becomes the forward 50% of the contiguous space (side opening facilitated)
- the aft 50% will still facilitate 1-2 UAVs (and the 100% can not only fit a helo - not necessarily a Merlin - but the helo can also be maintained, v necessary when the mission is more about a lengthy patrol than providing a Task Force with MCM that deploys with it)

@ Repulse,
I don't have a good understanding about the technicalities of ship design/ building, but in my above quote the "stern" mission bay has actually been distributed to three different locations (boat facilities on each side separate)
- admittedly all of them higher up than in the stern mission bay at a lower level than the hangar

However, a hangar is mainly full of air.
- in the 50/50 use of the contiguous space outlined in the quoted paragraph, the containers would be for people to work in; makes them at least half full of air, too
- do you see the centre of gravity a problem, to be neutralised by an "unnecessarily" large hull?

[Repulse]

@ArmChairCivvy: I really hope that the RN does not mix the MHPC and Frigate requirements, they are both distinct in my book and any merging would be mean big comprises on both.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Very good questions. I'd say due to the fact that all the T26s will be tied up on CBG and SSBN duties the new Frigate will need to do...

There are many good things about the direction in which the RN fleet composition is moving, but you have nailed the emerging weakness.

Our friend from Oz outlined the max effort on the carrier thread and the ASW component maxed out (with optimistic availability assumptions) already in that context.

[shark bait]

I really hope that the RN does not mix the MHPC and Frigate requirements, they are both distinct in my book and any merging would be mean big comprises on both.

Likewise. They cannot be merged, completely different platforms, with completely different aims, and hopefully completely different costs.

However looking roughly at dates, the Royal Navy may have 4 classes in construction at the same time. Successor, T26, MHPC and the lighter frigate. That's a lot of risk for a one budget to take.

[ArmChairCivvy]

mix the MHPC and Frigate requirements

Many people (also here) initially called the FLF "patrol frigates"?
- I tried to finess that in the broader context, i.e. if they will become... in the end... the most numerous class, what would it dictate as for multi-mission (slightly different from multi-role, with enough configurability within the class if and when they will be more than five) capability
- for the answer you will have to look at the technology and and at the emerging capability gaps simultaneously (and then, and only then, design the hulls; not assuming that money is no object)

CFR "the Royal Navy may have 4 classes in construction at the same time. Successor, T26, MHPC and the lighter frigate. That's a lot of risk for a one budget to take"
- we obviously (that's an SB quote, added) have a different view of risk
- v good; makes for discussion (the weather here is dull, again!)

[Repulse]

@ Repulse,
I don't have a good understanding about the technicalities of ship design/ building, but in my above quote the "stern" mission bay has actually been distributed to three different locations (boat facilities on each side separate)
- admittedly all of them higher up than in the stern mission bay at a lower level than the hangar

However, a hangar is mainly full of air.
- in the 50/50 use of the contiguous space outlined in the quoted paragraph, the containers would be for people to work in; makes them at least half full of air, too
- do you see the centre of gravity a problem, to be neutralised by an "unnecessarily" large hull?

Most of every ship is full of air, but even small amounts of weight that moves the centre of gravity higher up impacts stability, hence it needs to be balanced out. I'm no Naval architect of course, but I think the three key parameters are the center of bouancy, centre of gravity and the Metacentric height.

[Repulse]

However looking roughly at dates, the Royal Navy may have 4 classes in construction at the same time. Successor, T26, MHPC and the lighter frigate. That's a lot of risk for a one budget to take.

Agreed, but for me I'd hope that BAE could work on the T26 between 2020 and 2030, then move onto the Frigates before starting on the T45 replacement programme late 2030s. The sloop (MHPC) programme should go elsewhere in the 2030s as the design should be a navalised commercial design.

[Engaging Strategy]

Agreed, but for me I'd hope that BAE could work on the T26 between 2020 and 2030, then move onto the Frigates before starting on the T45 replacement programme late 2030s. The sloop (MHPC) programme should go elsewhere in the 2030s as the design should be a navalised commercial design.

With the BAE yards at full capacity the next generation MCM will probably be built at smaller yards like Appledore, it's well within their capacity - unlike frigates and destroyers.

[abc123]

OK, so no 2 x Mk41 VLS ( each about 20 mil. USD- 40 mil. USD ), no additional 24 CAMM ( say each missile 1,5 mil. USD- 36 mil. USD ), no launchers for them ( say 20 mil. USD less ), no Sonar 2087 ( say each 40 mil. USD ). So about 150 mil. USD of savings per ship at first glance. Let's say that they somehow manage to find additional 50 mil. USD savings somewhere. That's 200 mil. USD per ship. For 5 ships, that's about 1 bln. USD of savings.

And if my math is serving me, that's about 1,5 Type 26 less.

[617]

Where do you think T31 will be based?
I believe it might be best if all of the 8 T26s are at Plymouth and the 5 T31s based at Portsmouth.

Plymouth has recently had the worst treatment out of the 3 naval bases- subs to the Clyde, Ocean going and the loss of the T22s

[WhitestElephant]

can T-45 engage a sea-skimming missile before it appears above the horizon with the use of an AEW (I.e Merlin + Crowsnest)? Or is that what CEC is all about?

Yes... and yes. It does not matter what the sensor is, as long as it is good enough and your link back to the kill platform is good enough.
- the next level question is about how many simultaneous engagements can the kill platform handle (the assumption that there is only one of those platforms available may be unduly restrictive, but the answer needs to be derived at the first level, before moving on to the next level... which is the CEC domain as ships radars are more persistent than keeping one or several up in the air 24x7).

Worthwhile to note that the Crowsnest number (of helos, and then roll-on/ off kits) has consistently been 8, whereas HMG policy of having both of the carriers manned (at what level... still to be announced) has only been firmed up on fairly recently.
- so any Merlin capable deck will do nicely, thank you, as long as the links are (or will be upgraded) up to standard
- does not need to be CEC, necessarily, but having it would be an assurance for interoperability between units from different navies

Thank you for that explanation and clarification. Much appreciated.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Isn't MHPC renamed as MHC, after the OPV order? It was written in some document from MOD.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -00528.pdf

It states,
"The Mine countermeasures, Hydrographic and Patrol Capability Programme (MHPC) has now been renamed the Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic Capability (MHC). The name was changed following the announcement of the Maritime Composite Option (MCO) deal between MoD and BAE on 6 November 2013, which included the purchase of 3 new Offshore Patrol Vessels and therefore delivered the 'Patrol' solution."

[WhitestElephant]

Isn't MHPC renamed as MHC, after the OPV order? It was written in some document from MOD.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -00528.pdf

It states,
"The Mine countermeasures, Hydrographic and Patrol Capability Programme (MHPC) has now been renamed the Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic Capability (MHC). The name was changed following the announcement of the Maritime Composite Option (MCO) deal between MoD and BAE on 6 November 2013, which included the purchase of 3 new Offshore Patrol Vessels and therefore delivered the 'Patrol' solution."

MHPC or MHC, it doesn't really matter. They will have a patrol capacity regardless.

[donald_of_tokyo]

MHPC or MHC, it doesn't really matter. They will have a patrol capacity regardless.

Agreed, and currently I think ALL MHC are also used in patrol duties. But, in that case, the MHPC program did not need "P" from the beginning. I understand it means the vessel will not "required" to replace OPV role. If needed (technically), it can much concentrated on MCM operations.

The USV/UUV mine-hunting gears are yet to come out, and still needs some evaluation in theater (current trials are continuously failing...). I suppose it will need at least another 5 years to settled down. I think RN shall wait for it, and save the day by modified Hunt and some Sandowns.

[ArmChairCivvy]

therefore delivered the 'Patrol' solution

The keyword there is 'solution' as the prgrm, before and into the future is about capability, and how that will be delivered will then dictate the hulls
- that was unfortunately turned upside down as TOBA dictated hulls that could be started asap (so the design had to be close to an existing one)

In the early days someone made it fourteen hulls (probably some kind like for like calculation), so keeping tabs:
- 3 for "P", another 5 (?) for "P"
- and the rest?
- M currently @600t and H @13.500...don't think one type will fit
- whereas for off-board M and more hulls for P there is an overlap (me thinks)

Further, I don't think the first part (the one enclosed in parenthesis) of this statement is accurate

"(current trials are continuously failing...). I suppose it will need at least another 5 years to settled down. I think RN shall wait for it, and save the day by modified Hunt and some Sandowns."

, whereas the rest of it is.
- let's just assume we are already into 2016, so five years => 2021
- the first T26 in 2022, then 3 more x 2 years, add another 6 years

If there will be any combination of capabilities onto same hull type, we will not see it in water before 2030!

[Gabriele]

MHC is definitely going to focus on the offboard systems for now. The mothership will be the existing Hunt, with the stern modified. This is settled and official.

MOD documents dating back all the way to 2012 or earlier also make clear that no new ship will be built to replace Hunt and Sandown before 2028. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was pushed even further to the right, for lack of money if not for something else.

As for the "Light Frigate", we have to assume it won't enter service before 2030/31 at the earliest (assuming Type 26 entering service one per year beginning in 2023. In the new year we might even discover this is further slowed down, can't exclude it).

[Ron5]

Wll at half the price of a T26. Hmmmmmm.

No chance. I bet during the SDSR the RN raised that they needed more frigates, and the the "light Frigate" idea was the treasury's way to turn the question back on the Navy. I expect the same behaviour from the establishment, BAE and RN desk jockeys and end up with another 5 (best case) T26s they were aiming for in the first case. No increase in numbers, no improved export chances, just a continued drive towards a single "death star".

Remove the Mission Bay, replace the gun with a 76mm and upgrade Mica VL SAM to CAMM and its not a million miles away from an extended BAE corvette, which IMO is auch better start for a Frigate.

Good speculation I think.

[Ron5]

If you ask me, removing mission space and aviation space is the ONE thing that must NOT be done.

With how things are now, and with how technology is evolving, the one thing the ships of the future will need is space for carrying the helicopters and unmanned vehicles that will do the actual job, including ASW. Since this "light frigate" is almost certainly not going to enter service before 2030 at the earliest, it should be taken as a chance to actually use the brain to figure out what to do next, instead of merely trying to squeeze a Type 26 into a smaller pricetag.

What should it do?
How will it do it?
What does it need to do it?
What hull better supports the equipment needed?

In other words, does it even need to be a traditional frigate? How do we expect to detect, track and pursue submarine contacts in the future? The answer seems to me to be, from studies and experiments and experience already available, "unmanned vehicles and helicopters". Remember that it seems that already the Type 26 itself won't have shipborne torpedo tubes and/or an ASW weapon other than helicopter-carried Stingray.
What if the right answer was to seek out increasingly stealthy submarines by using unmanned surface vehicles towing some active and some passive sonars working in cooperation to cover a wide area, with the "frigate" in the middle of the "one-ship task group", carrying the helicopters for pursuing the contacts at range...?
Note: in a way a modern re-edition of the old "One Fort supply ship with helicopters and Sea Wolf in the middle, and cheap, almost unarmed, expendable Type 23s with towed sonar all around her".
The Falkalnds, of course, proved that such a Type 23, being a manned and large ship, would be useless in anything other than that single role. But the Fort + T23 would have probably done very well in ASW proper. (Although being centered around Sea Wolf, with its very short range, it was a way to seek a quick demise by long-range soviet aviation with supersonic, big-ass anti-ship missiles...)
Now, the "Type 23" could be a small unmanned vessel, so that changes some angles.

How do we expect to engage enemy surface ships...? Again, i often hear that ship-launched missiles are not the right answer. I don't totally agree with that, but i also don't entirely disagree. If the answer ends up being "missiles from embarked helicopter / unmanned vehicle" and the design is a 1 Merlin HM2 frigate lillypad, something is seriously wrong somewhere down the path that connects doctrine to shipbuilding.

Is CAMM adequate for anything other than own ship survivability, perhaps extending to a second vessel sailing real close? What is the CONOPS? If the ASW threat of the future, for whatever reason, requires forming convoys, how do you escort said convoys from missiles coming above the waves, particularly sub-launched anti-ship missiles. The frigate maybe survives, the merchant vessel(s) close to it also... the rest of the convoy dies...?

And so along. Disaster relief is not suited to a frigate; they carry too little stuff. Using a RFA is an even worse waste of a strategic resource which is removed from its actual role and task. So, what? Need more space.
Most common instability scenarios happen ashore and require sending soldiers, perhaps not even so many, but soldiers, to the scene. Answering to piracy? Also tipically requires Marines, not missiles. Boats, helicopters, people, space.

So, a "small" frigate with one helicopter, one gun, some missiles (we don't even know what, if anything, is to go in the Type 26's own MK41s, i always have to remind), is a good answer... i'm just not sure to which problem?

The worst possible outcome for this post-Type 26 adventure might be... the traditional frigate, made cheap by means of uncertainty and cost-cutting on sensors and weapons. What purpose does such a "frigate" actually serve? When, from 2030, you have a "modern day Type 23"... what do you do with it?
More of the same, of course. And in a way, it'll do. But i'm not sure it'll be the right stuff at the right time. I think at the very least the navy should think about it for real.



Meanwhile, 200 million pounds are buying this:

https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operations/ ... ch-vessel/

Lots of space; huge endurance; space for carrying and equipment for launching unmanned vehicles...

There are problems: a military version would cost more (if only to move the flight deck to a more convenient location and add hangars and workshop for a sizeable air element, for example, and putting on at least a CAMM battery) and, of course, what i'm proposing delivers cheaper ships and smaller crews but new or just more expensive payloads to put on them (more aviation, more unmanned vehicles, more crews for those).

However, i think these are real considerations to be made at this point in time.


And with this, i'm sure i will have gained some more haters... While, for sure, i've just spoilered one of the articles on my "i need to write this soon" list.

Great post. Very thought provoking.

[marktigger]

why go for a 76mm it just complicates the logistics. The Main armament on the frigates and I's say as soon at T45 is refitted will be the 127mm. As its effective for what the gun armament is now see as and that is NGFS as was shown in the Falklands and on the Al Faw peninsular. 76mm doesn't provide with the range nor weight of shell to be effective in this role. And one of the roles both FIGS & WIGS have is to provide NGFS to deployed troops.
And the accountants will say to stop a fishing boat or a pirate skiff you don't need anything better than a 30mm.
We have had the Oto Melara in the inventory before if the RN were that Impressed with it I'm sure the rivers and clyde would have been fitted with them instead they were mainly sold with the Peacock class except for the one at "Explosion". I also note the new Australian and Dutch ships have 127mm guns not the 76mm.

[Repulse]

The interesting option for the 76mm is the range of ammo and fire rate which means it has a limited CIWS capability also.

[marktigger]

The interesting option for the 76mm is the range of ammo and fire rate which means it has a limited CIWS capability also.

So has the 127mm and the 4.5 but the main reason we put guns back on the requirements list for Frigates was for NGFS. The 76mm was fashionable in the 80's/90's and I'm sure there was a pitch for them to be put on the Type 23, Type 45 and Type 26. But as an NGFS weapon the 127mm is the better option.

[shark bait]

Isn't MHPC renamed as MHC, after the OPV order? It was written in some document from MOD.

It has. Program is a name change only, the new platforms will still be expected to have a patrol capabilities as any sizeable platform has inherent patrol capabilities.

Its a long way away yet, 2028 is the current plan.

So has the 127mm and the 4.5 but the main reason we put guns back on the requirements list for Frigates was for NGFS. The 76mm was fashionable in the 80's/90's and I'm sure there was a pitch for them to be put on the Type 23, Type 45 and Type 26. But as an NGFS weapon the 127mm is the better option.

The 76mm seems like an odd choice. A bit to small for our frigate's and way too big for our patrol ships.